Fed Judge to NY: You Made No Attempt to Control Protests, You Can’t Control Outdoor Religious Gatherings

[Weatherman2020]

“A gratifying victory. The subtext of the ruling, wrote Peter Spiliakos, is that ‘the NY state and city governments were treating left-wing protest as a de facto state religion and were discriminating against other faiths.’ Gotta treat all creeds equally under the law. No special privileges for devotional wokery.”

Rev. Soos v. Cuomo (20-cv-00651) memo and order.pdf

drive.google.com

 

[Muhammed]

“A gratifying victory. The subtext of the ruling, wrote Peter Spiliakos, is that ‘the NY state and city governments were treating left-wing protest as a de facto state religion and were discriminating against other faiths.’ Gotta treat all creeds equally under the law. No special privileges for devotional wokery.”

Rev. Soos v. Cuomo (20-cv-00651) memo and order.pdf

drive.google.com

Regarding religion, under the 1st amendment of the US constitution, that's not supposed to be within the purview of the government in the first place. It is not their place to decide what is or is not religious in nature. It's none of their fucking business, period.

"no law" means no fucking law.

 

[TheParser]

Kudos to a very brave judge.

He has criticized two (flawed) idols of the Dems.

How refreshing at this particular time when so many people are literally kneeling at the feet of very destructive individuals.

 

[shockedcanadian]

“A gratifying victory. The subtext of the ruling, wrote Peter Spiliakos, is that ‘the NY state and city governments were treating left-wing protest as a de facto state religion and were discriminating against other faiths.’ Gotta treat all creeds equally under the law. No special privileges for devotional wokery.”

Rev. Soos v. Cuomo (20-cv-00651) memo and order.pdf

drive.google.com

It is really odd, not only how far some have politicized their decisions, but how unfair they are.

Of course, GOP run locations will have some political bias as well, but the biggest difference is in principle. You won't see conservatives try to shut down people because of an ideology difference. As long as they are peaceful and making their points, they should be heard.

Why would someone allow one "protest", or some other activity such as drinking "essential service", but ones right to peacefully attend Faith services as unacceptable and dangerous? On the surface, it certainly looks to be biased and/or political.

You govern ALL citizens, not just your parties supporters and issues.

 

[wamose]

This is justice but Democrats will whine about it. That's because they have no problem with being hypocrites and nothing pisses them off more than morality and God.

 

[protectionist]

Democrat mayors and governors have been allowing horrendous crime, rioting, looting, arson, etc. for years now. They did it with the Ferguson, Baltimore, et al riots a few years ago. All this seems to be in an effort to avoid offending blacks, NO MATTER WHAT THE COST, including allowing all US society to be destroyed fundamentally.

These lunatics, together with BLM and other black crazies whom they pander to, are perhaps the most dangerous element ever to arise in America. I wish Trump would have stopped them cold with US troops all over the country. It's never a good idea to fear public opinion, when you're doing the right thing.